This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders?
Hi Honza,
> > > Now, do we ever pass ERROR_MARK to expanders these days? If not, we
> > > should do something like gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (to) != ERROR_MARK);.
> >
> > I think we do. We only don't do optimizations if errorcount or
> > sorrycount is non-zero, but we do call rest_of_compilation on
> > functions even after errors. I don't know *why* we would want to
> > expand any trees after errors, though...
>
> The main rationaly has always been to get as many warnings as possible.
> Perhaps we can weaken this now especialy on tree-profiling branch where
> we will throw into tree optimizers everything we would do if we were
> producing assembly and thus get all tree level warnings (and I would not
> very trust the RTL level warnings to come out sane anyway)
OK. Then we may be able to stop expanding trees in presence of errors
as early as 4.1.
Kazu Hirata